Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):I think if there's a reasonably significant disparity a 7-game series is likely to do a pretty good job in basketball. Assuming everyone is reasonably healthy at the time of the series, at least. In this case the disparity seemed small enough that it's hard to say the better team won. In baseball even with a significant disparity in team talent 7 games really isn't enough, but there's a much larger variance in results in that sport...

Without a doubt, but I'm fairly certain the Heat were the best team in basketball this season. Still haven't seen an iota of evidence to the contrary.

The Heat were the best team this season, but I would struggle to confidently proclaim them the best team in this series. So I'm not 100% confident the series accurately demonstrated the best team RIGHT NOW, which is really what postseasons are built to do, since it's the best they can achieve. But yes, in this case it certainly seems to have worked out right based on the entire season's worth of evidence. But that's really not what llama or I are trying to discuss with you. Nobody is arguing the point that the Heat were the better team, we're arguing the statement that 7-game series accurately determine the better team.

They won four of. seven, they were definitely the best team in this series. There's not one shred of evidence to the contrary.

You could look at it this way - the best sample size we actually have access to isn't 4 out of 7 games, it's the balance of the series. Over the course of 7 games the Spurs scored a few more points than the Heat. Thus, the Spurs were the better team. In general in sports we tend to value scoring margin over small discrepancies in record. This is why everyone thought the Orioles were overachieving last year - their scoring margin didn't bear out their winning record. Not like I'm making this up on the fly, sportscasters and stat guys have been saying it for years.

Posted by The Taint on 6/21/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):Cause there was a huge one in this series.

Danny Green individually went nuts, but the Spurs were a 38% 3PT shooting team this year, and they shot 30%, 50%, and 40% in their 3 wins, and could certainly have won either of Game 6 or 7 despite shooting 30% (after shooting 50% in the two easy Heat wins). The only really crazy game they got shooting the 3 as a team was a 30+ point blowout.

Really, this series was about as even as it could get in the final analysis. Both teams had 2 easy victories and the other 3 games were all decided in the final minutes.

Posted by The Taint on 6/21/2013 2:30:00 PM (view original):I haven't really seen any evidence to the contrary. I really don't see how anyone can say the Spurs were better, which is where this all started.

No, you just totally continue to miss the point, which is that the best team doesn't necessarily win a 7-game series. Nobody ever said that it happened in this series, but you preferred that argument to the more abstract one of whether a 7-game sample was really large enough to determine the better team...

Posted by The Taint on 6/21/2013 2:30:00 PM (view original):I haven't really seen any evidence to the contrary. I really don't see how anyone can say the Spurs were better, which is where this all started.

No, you just totally continue to miss the point, which is that the best team doesn't necessarily win a 7-game series. Nobody ever said that it happened in this series, but you preferred that argument to the more abstract one of whether a 7-game sample was really large enough to determine the better team...

Posted by The Taint on 6/21/2013 2:30:00 PM (view original):I haven't really seen any evidence to the contrary. I really don't see how anyone can say the Spurs were better, which is where this all started.

No, you just totally continue to miss the point, which is that the best team doesn't necessarily win a 7-game series. Nobody ever said that it happened in this series, but you preferred that argument to the more abstract one of whether a 7-game sample was really large enough to determine the better team...

Posted by The Taint on 6/21/2013 1:28:00 PM (view original):A series has to end somewhere. Teams can be tied at 150-150 in a 301 game series.....the team that wins 301 is the better team. Not really sure how else you can measure it.

A few things...

Yes, obviously a series has to end somewhere. That's how you get to "winner" but not necessarily "better".

If the series is 151-150, 1501-1500, or 15001-15000, I don't think it becomes any clearer which team is better. Those are some evenly matched teams right there. The larger sample size increases confidence in the result if there's more of a spread, not less.

Earlier, you added more information to show that the Heat were the better team. "Toss in the NBA's best record, the second longest winning streak in NBA history, the NBA title, and a two game sweep of the Spurs in the regular season and yes I'm comfortable saying the better team won. Do you have any facts to refute the information I'm using to base my claim?" So if the Spurs had won game seven, all that is moot?

See #3, your quoted statements. THAT'S how you begin to build a case for one team being BETTER than the other. Good job.

In a series, you get a WINNER. By studying performances in a variety of ways, in as large a sample as you can get, you find out who's BETTER. That's my point. You and I can both name a bunch of examples of a clearly inferior team winning four out of seven games.

*Minor edits to reduce dickishness. I don't have a problem with you.

I see what you're saying, and do agree with a lot of it. Not in this case though. The better team won.

In sports there's usually a seven game series to decide the better team, I'm not really sure how else to measure. Why have a post season?

No dickishness perceived.

Hmm, pretty sure I conceded the point that the weaker team can sometimes win

Posted by The Taint on 6/21/2013 2:30:00 PM (view original):I haven't really seen any evidence to the contrary. I really don't see how anyone can say the Spurs were better, which is where this all started.

No, you just totally continue to miss the point, which is that the best team doesn't necessarily win a 7-game series. Nobody ever said that it happened in this series, but you preferred that argument to the more abstract one of whether a 7-game sample was really large enough to determine the better team...